IP v QFI

[reacher]

I've had this can of worms sitting here for a while now. I figured I would crack it open and see what would result.

I often read (yes often) about the IP system the yanks have in place and was interested how it works compared to a QFI system and if the two have more in common then just the word and function "Instructor"

[27mm]

One example is that of RAF QFIs seconded to the RSAF on Hawks or Tornadoes, where they are sheep-dipped and become IPs. The main difference (in KSA any anyway), is that as an RSAF IP you instruct everything, ie you are both QFI and QWI. Now, let's both sit back and watch the bullets start flying and the thread creep as the QFI/QWI banter starts!

[flt_lt_w_mitty]

You mean like you cannot be a QWI if you are circumcised..................:)

[jindabyne]

Ask Wholigan - he's a QFI!!

[soddim]

Might be allowed to comment here as a QWI who has taught USAF IPs and been an IP too.

The USAF probably have it right - the IP teaches on the operational type and role after a specialised course on type. The Training IP teaches new guys to fly on training aircraft - if he is required to instruct on operational types he does the same course as the operational IP.

They also have Fighter Weapons Instructors who are specialists - not dissimilar to our QWIs.

The universal QFI is an RAF invention but in my experience the ex-flying training QFI should really get a course akin to the USAF IP course before being let loose on operational types as a QFI.

[psy clops]

the ex-flying training QFI should really get a course akin to the USAF IP course before being let loose on operational types as a QFISo why would that be then? (I know that this is a bite!)

When I was QFI'ing on the front line it was mainly to check that the sqn JP was not about to plant the jet during a swept / flapless etc. When I was QFI'ing on basic i used my whiteboard and 4-colours (yep, creamie A2 - gets no better) for different reasons. Nevertheless IMHO there was certainly room for a 'proper' CFS trained QFI on any sqn. At least we could be kept quiet for hours working out detachment V speeds...

We'll not get into the QWI vs QFI stuff, apart from saying that you don't find many Nav QFIs do you?

[Delta Hotel]

Soddim,
I thought that a training Command QFI had to complete a Certificate to instruct course prior to teaching on an operational squadron?

With regards to IPs, don't the Fin Force have them, and what do they think?:bored:

[Wholigan]

jindabyne -- I might have to send "Intensive Dave" from Brum round to "'ave a little chat"!!!!!!!

And anyway - I'm also an IP, a PAI, a QWI, an FWI, an ex-IRE, ex-CIRE and overtasked!!!! :E :\

[saudipc-9]

The universal QFI is an RAF invention but in my experience the ex-flying training QFI should really get a course akin to the USAF IP course before being let loose on operational types as a QFI.

As an exchange IP with the USAF, worked for BAe in Saudi as an IP and the CAF as a QFI, I will wade into the discussion here. The difference is simply semantics. An Instructor Pilot in the USAF or Qualified Flying Instructor in the RAF/CAF. The only difference is which Air Force you happen to be flying for or what you are qualified to instruct.
Teaching Undergraduate or Graduate aircrew requires the same set of instructional skills ……mostly patience!

[50+Ray]

OK, bite. The CFS full course produces a far better qualified Instructor than the shorter IP course. Having taught Elementary or Basic students does not qualify anybody to be an instant expert on a Squadron or OCU until completing the relevant training for that aircraft type and being checked out as 'Competent to Instruct' in that role.

[US Herk]

Didn't have the pleasure of flying with any QFIs on my exchange tour, rather, all the instruction was performed by "training captains" who I found to be generally outstanding pilots, but often poor instructors. Not a knock on them at all, just pushed into a less than ideal situation & performed admirably given their background & skills (and my whinging!:p )

As my first-hand experience is nil, I only know what I was told about QFIs, but as pointed out above, USAF IPs are sent to specific aircraft instructor school - no matter how many weapons systems they've been on prior. All instructors also receive a short course on basic instructing prior to their MDS-specific instructor course (unless, of course, they were an IP in a previous system - they get to skip the generic course).

Having instructed new IPs going through upgrade who were IPs in previous aircraft, I find the MDS-specific course to be invaluable to these already experienced IP candidates. Consequently, I find it difficult to imagine a QFI moving to a new aircraft being up to speed as quickly as an IP trained in that specific aircraft. Not a knock on skills at all...

[BEagle]

I went from VC10K IRE to UAS B2 QFI a few years ago. But the CFS course equips you exceptionally well for the instructional instinct. Obtained A2 on the Bulldog, then back to the VC10. For reasons various, the OCU needed a new QFI, so my refresher on the VC10 was geared towards instructing on the OCU, which suprised me somewhat....

I actually found getting back up to B Cat standard more difficult than the old "WIGYC" routine - and at the time we also had to instruct on the ground school, simulator and aircraft. Did the A2 on the '10, then a fair bit of instruction. The CFS ethos forces you to stick to all the rules and procedures, frustrating as that might seem. And yes, it most certainly DOES make you a better pilot - even crap folk like me - because you learn to be very analytical.

We had a non-Q 'FI' on the OCU. And yes, the difference between CFS-trained and non CFS-trained certainly did show.

CFS was once the premier instructor training organisation, with a well-deserved reputation worldwide. God knows what it's like nowadays....

[soddim]

There is without doubt a need to give an instructor a chance to learn and practise those elements he/she is required to instruct. Whilst the grounding in instructional technique is common to all instructors, the specific sortie elements peculiar to type and role need to be addressed by a specialised course.

That is what the USAF do for their IPs regardless of background or previous instructional qualification. (or, they did in my day!).

Although in theory the RAF certification to instruct does the job, it lacks the attributes of a formal course with set standards.

It is a tribute to those who instruct that they do so well without this formal training course. Most QFIs and QWIs manage fairly comfortably but instructors with no previous qualification really would benefit from formal training.